Yes, Lerner targeted the Tea Party, and even what she called “organizations woven by the fabulously rich and hugely influential Koch brothers”. More Koch Derangement Syndrome. Some people are on too much Koch!

runningrn says “The Koch brothers didn’t even crack the top 10 when it came to the top political donors. In fact they are way the heck down the list at number 59…The 6 biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats…”

One should ask why the IRS doesn’t target all that union money? Or target, to coin a phrase, “organizations woven by the fabulously rich and hugely influential George Soros”?

AND SOME FOLLOW-UPS:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D – FL) won’t be charged after allegations that he physically abused his wife. GP talked about it here. The video evidence – which was incomplete (having gaps in it) – did not support Lolita Carson-Grayson’s story. Nonetheless, a judge granted her a restraining order against Rep. Grayson. We’re still waiting for the new feminist campaign, “I BELIEVE YOU, LOLITA!”

Gary Lyngar answers his son, who had made a splash by claiming “I lost my dad to Fox News”. Hint: The son was about as real and honest with us as you’d expect from a writer who whines about his parent’s politics. As the elder Mr. Lyngar puts it, his son was “dead wrong” and “a lot of it’s his perception of what’s going on and not reality”.

My long absence from GayPatriot, has been brought on by a few factors, chief among them that I’ve been taking some classes in the evenings and haven’t had much time for blogging, and what little time I have had to spare has been consumed by more going on socially than in the recent past. But beyond that, there has been my general sense of what I wrote about in this post, and called either Obamalaise or Obamanomie, that feeling of depression and listlessness that comes when I consider the sad state of a country that elected Obama not once, but twice and seems more interested in bread and circuses than in seeking actual, workable solutions to the difficult problems that face our country.

As I don’t care to be guilty of the same intellectual offense, I’d like to highlight and unpack a few of the article’s more ridiculous claims and observations. Let’s start with the opening paragraph:

Old, white, wrinkled and angry, they are slipping from polite society in alarming numbers. We’re losing much of a generation. They often sport hats or other clothing, some marking their status as veterans, Tea Partyers or “patriots” of some kind or another. They have yellow flags, bumper stickers and an unquenchable rage. They used to be the brave men and women who took on America’s challenges, tackling the ’60s, the Cold War and the Reagan years — but now many are terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.

Of course GayPatriot readers can see what he’s doing there, but just for the sake of argument, let’s illustrate that he opens by offering a caricature and a generalization about elderly Fox News viewers, conflates Fox News viewers with the Tea Party, accuses them of being filled with “rage,” and then ends by trying to ridicule them as being “terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.” Say what? That last clause is contains so many misrepresentations and non-sequiturs that it is really rather stunning. Barack Obama is only a moderate Democrat if you are so far to the left already that you can’t see how far his administration has shifted the political status quo towards statist goals. And just because Obamacare was given the Orwellian title “the Affordable Care Act,” doesn’t mean it has anything to do with making healthcare more affordable. Far from it, just ask the many people dropped from insurance who find that their health insurance costs have gone up and their deductibles are now much higher than they were previously. Even those who haven’t had to change insurance are getting less for more costs.

The article continues with an anecdote about the author’s father and an exchange where the writer tells him he shouldn’t watch Fox News:

I enjoyed Fox News for many years, as a libertarian and frequent Republican voter. I used to share many, though not all, of my father’s values, but something happened over the past few years. As I drifted left, the white, Republican right veered into incalculable levels of conservative rage, arriving at their inevitable destination with the creation of the Tea Party movement.

When I finally pulled the handle for Obama in 2012, my father could not believe how far I’d fallen. I have avoided talking politics with him as much as possible ever since. Last week, I invited him to my house for dinner with the express purpose of talking about po

. . . is liberal prejudice, their assumption that opposition to the president and his policies is based on race. And this assumption grows out of ignorance, a basic unfamiliarity with Republican ideas and conservative arguments.

I’m just a li’l part-time blogger, but in the top 20, I count only one eeeeeevil corporation favoring the GOP…against twelve unions, strongly favoring Democrats. Which party is all about the “big money” again?

ZH has a longer list, wherein you’ll glean these tidbits:

HRC comes in impressively (I mean it) at number 100, having given $11.9 million; 89% to Democrats.

The much-pilloried Koch Industries only comes in at number 62, with $17.4 million.

The much-pilloried NRA only comes in at number 52, with $20.2 million.

Democrats and their allies in the legacy media keep telling us that the GOP is in dire straits. And I’ll grant that my party has work to do. But, I do wonder if the president’s party is not in straits even more dire than that of is political rival, its problems papered over by the strong support Barack Obama enjoys in some segments of society (especially in the various newsrooms that dot America’s coasts).

If the Democrats have such an appeal with the American people — and are so confident in their message, why must they regularly resort to dishonest demagoguery, misrepresenting Republican stands on issues and regularly calling their partisan rivals “extreme.” Bear in mind that Barack Obama did not win reelection running on his record but by demonizing Mitt Romney, airing over a quarter-billion dollars of attacks ads — before the party conventions.

Saw two examples of this yesterday on Facebook:

Ms. Gillibrand is trying to advance her own cause by misrepresenting her partisan rivals — and stirring up fears among African-Americans.

Now, although Mrs. Bachmann was an elected public official, she was neither a leader among her congressional colleagues nor successful in her attempt to break into double digits in political caucuses with real consequences in the GOP presidential contest.

And the left-wing writer linked on Yahoo!’s homepage decides to define the Tea Party’s supposed “mental midgetry” by referencing one obscure Tea Party representative and a crackpot state representative (representing a jurisdiction of approximately 38,000). And then proceeds to engage in a string of insults:

The crap the Tea Party peddles is nothing new. The ideas behind the Tea Party are nothing new. The world has been plagued by mental degenerates since the dawn of time and we might as well accept that demanding cogent arguments from them is going to change anything.

This was little more than an angry rant dressed up as an opinion piece.

By this writer’s methodology, we should define contemporary liberalism by the mean-spirited signs hoisted at San Francisco rallies, imagery which Zombie routinely posts on pjmedia.

(Has Yahoo! ever linked Zombie on its home page? And yes, this is a real, not a rhetorical question because I don’t know. I don’t recall seeing such links, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.)

Take a gander at this screen capture from the Washington Post web=site (taken at 7:32 PM GayPatriot blog time on 05/30/13):

The editors of the left-of-center Washington Post and its readership are all abuzz about the retirement of a four-term Republican Congressman from Minnesota, a woman who withdrew from the only race for House leadership she entered and came in sixth place (with only 5% of the vote) in the one presidential caucus she contested. During her congressional tenure, Mrs. Bachmann neither moved a major piece of legislation nor spearheaded efforts to promote conservative legislative initiatives.

Like other charismatic former legislator from the Midwest, she won her prominence not based on her work product, but on her public appearances. She is an effective speaker who can move a partisan crowd.

Her departure should not generate this much media attention. Her charisma notwithstanding, she is not a leader of the GOP. Yet, despite the failure of her congressional colleagues to support her bid for leadership and of Republican voters to embrace her, manyliberal activists (just check your Facebook feed) as well as their allies in the media have tried to portray her as the face of the GOP.

And in so doing, they have unfairly maligned and otherwise mocked her — and have failed to fault crazy left-wing activists from publicly insulting her. With her outlandish claims, Mrs. Bachmann has a great deal in common with such Democrats as California’s Barbara Boxer, Iowa’s Tom Harkin and Florida’s Alan Grayson, the primary difference being that the media downplay rather than highlight those Democrats’ odd statements and don’t pretend they are the leaders of their party. (more…)

On Tuesday, Jeff posted a video with clips of the current President of the United States Barack Obama using almost identical language to that of Richard Nixon to describe how each learned about scandals taking place under his watch, with both politicians claiming they had learned about them from news reports.

Today, while tidying my desk, I came across a note I had scribbled over four months ago:

Dem[ocrat]s want to define GOP by Nixon now/fear party being defined by Reagan — hence the silly line that Gipper couldn’t win in today’s GOP.

They’ve even got Bob Dole repeating that Democratic talking point (without providing any evidence to back it up).

If the Democrats continue to stonewall on the various scandals percolating around this administration, the media will have a tougher and tougher time making the age-old Nixon comparisons stick to the GOP.

NB: I had scribbled the note on January 9, 2013, the one hundredth anniversary of Nixon’s birth.

UPDATE: Meant to include this screen capture from the Obama-friendly AOL: (more…)

Charles C. W. Cooke wonders why those who freaked out about the PATRIOT Act and how it might lead to people’s library records being seized aren’t so concerned about the IRS asking conservative groups to hand over their Facebook posts and a list of books they were reading. Or for records of conversations they had or their positions on issues. Shouldn’t the ACLU be as up in arms about the IRS’s intrusion into people’s privacy as they were about Homeland Security looking at suspected terrorist’s use of library computers?

Did the immediate past president — or his henchmen — ever demand that his political adversaries, in order to receive a benefit from the government, reveal the content of their prayers or the names of their members?

At this time, the 767-word news article that I’ve linked to never gets around to mentioning that “Jon Corzine” is a top Democrat. It lists his political involvement simply as “former New Jersey governor”, omitting not only his party, but also his powerful roles as a Democrat Senator and as one of Obama’s very top fund-raisers and (formerly) advisors.

At this time, the article’s photo caption has even (wrongly) put an “(R)” after Corzine’s name. The caption reads:

Reuters/Reuters – Former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine (R) receives help with his notes from his legal counsel as he testifies before a House Financial Services Committee Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee…

Bias, anyone?

From The Comments:John points out that the (R) would of course be defended as the photographic “right”. But even allowing that, Corzine is not the guy on the right; he’s the guy in the center (of three people in a rapidly-receding perspective). The point is that somebody at Reuters is fine with allowing people to think that Corzine is something other than a top Democrat.

With the enactment yesterday in the Wolverine State of right-to-work legislation, freeing individual workers from the obligation to pay union dues, the unions have not reacted in a, well, dignified manner.

Take a gander at how union activists treated one conservative blogger outside the Michigan state capitol:

Via Hot Air. The same folks knocked down a tent that Americans for Prosperity (with a permit) put up on the state capitol grounds, cheering as it collapsed with people in it.

Yet, neither AOL, Yahoo! nor the Washington Post cover this on their front pages this morning. Here are some screen-captures of the Post’s front page:

That great American dreamt that his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” With that line, King defined the ideal we should all strive for–to judge an individual not by his skin color, but but his character.

That notion seems to be lost to many Democrats attacking Republicans for raising questions about Ambassador Susan Rice’s public statements on Benghazi. As Victor Davis Hanson put it two days ago:

Susan Rice misleads the country and suddenly her critics are racists and sexists — does not mean that it does not work in deterring critics. A white liberal can all but destroy Condoleezza Rice or Alberto Gonzalez and feel very liberal, but a peep about Barack Obama or Susan Rice from a white male is akin to a KKK slur.

We will have truly realized Dr. King’s dream when defenders of an African-American figure subject to criticism don’t assume that his (or her) critics were motivated by her race. They may well have been calling her character into question — or her actions.

And they will defend her character — or her actions — rather than make assumptions about her critics’ motives.

Last week, I think it was — or maybe it was the week before, I caught on Anderson Cooper that helps explains the GOP’s image problem.

That CNN anchor was talking about Todd Akin (does seem our friends in the legacy media devote more time to that failed Senate candidate’s crazy statement on rape than they do to the failure of elected Democratic Senators to pass a budget) and wondering what his defeat meant for the Tea Party, given the support, Cooper claimed, of that dynamic, grassroots movement for the Missouri social conservative.

Fortunately, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was on Cooper’s panel and quickly corrected him; Akin was not the Tea Party candidate, in fact, he won the GOP primary earlier this year because he was competing against two candidates who hailed from that wing of the party.

Three points/questions about this exchange stand out:

Anderson Cooper’s prejudices; he should have known better; had he bothered to researcht the 2012 Missouri GOP Senate primary, he would have quickly learned that Akin was definitely not a Tea Party candidate. The supposedly even-handd “news” anchor just assumed that because Akin had some extreme views, he must be Tea Party, that is, he appears to see the Tea Party as an extremist outfit. And Cooper seems unaware that the Tea Party lacks a social issue focus (as Mr. Akin has).

Cooper’s ignorance about the Tea Party seems to help foster popular misrepresentation of the movement.

If Fleischer had not been there to correct Cooper, his misrepresentation would have gone unchallenged. How many other similar media misrepresentations go unchallenged?

A conservative Facebook friends reports that today the president spoke the following disingenuous words:

If you say women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let employers deny contraceptive care, you might have a case of Romnesia.

Um, Mr, President, which candidate supports legislation that would deny contraceptive care? I do believe there’s a bill out there that would prevent the state from mandating that a private employer pay for his employees’ contraception.

And how exactly could an employer deny contraceptive care? Does the president really believe they have control over their employees’ private lives?

UPDATE: Later, responding to my comment, she added:

Our President rhetorically leaps over the chasm between forcing a third party to buy someone else contraception because of a preexisting economic relationship (presumably unrelated to pregnancy causation) versus that person somehow blocking the second person’s access to contraception. It is a dishonest effort to make people think Romney wants their employers to be able to block contraceptives.

Of all the things from the second debate my liberal friends have focused on in their (post-debate) Facebook posts, Mitt Romney’s supposed binder blunder gets the most amount of commentary. As I write this (about 10:53 PST on Wednesday night), one of Yahoo!’s top “News” headlines links to an opinion piece on that very topic:

Democrats, it seems, were looking for a gaffe and came up with this, most likely to blunt Mitt Romney’s momentum with women. Michael Barone observes, that since the first debate, “it appears” that Romney has “made greater gains among women than men.” He cites Democratic pollster Celinda Lake who said that after October 3, women “came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.”

And yet the response they cited shows how Romney went out of his way to hire more women to his administration.

was one of the strongest of the night, and judging from the Obama team’s reaction, his record in hiring women may have gone over quite well. In the Obama team’s telling, however, the awkward phrasing of “binders full of women” is somehow insulting.

. . . .

As Mark Halperin tweeted, “Dem attempts to make this binder thing into a deal is . . . freakshow (and Ds know it). And/but they will find willing accomplices in much of MSM.”

The Advocate’s Michelle Garcia’s latest piece fails to mention that John Bolton has been a consistent defender of gay rights, gay marriage and a critic of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell before it was overturned, Garcia also fails to show how Bolton’s comment describing President Obama as a weak leader is in anyway homophobic.

I also find it ironic that while The Advocate has consistently refused to report on John Bolton’s early support for Log Cabin Republicans and gay rights, they jump to write a phony and purposefully deceptive piece about him – all because he is a Republican. Calling a conservative friend of our community homophobic is a self-inflicted wound. Are Advocate writers so in the tank for the Democrats that they attack a supporter of gay rights just because he’s not a Democrat? Garcia’s story is the perfect example of how the old gay guard and its magazine of choice is out of touch with gay Americans today. Yesterday’s warriors of acceptance have morphed into today’s liberal intolerants. This is the exact faux outrage that makes The Advocate the magazine of your old gay uncle. It isn’t a serious place for news or information.

Please note that I merely cut and pasted the letter without adding — or altering a word.

The retelling of the debt-ceiling negotiations, and of Obama’s decision to up the ante by $400 billion on taxes, reminds us that Obama, in essence, spiked the deal. He simply did not get the job done. From Woodward’s book: “It is a fact that President Obama was handed a miserable, faltering economy and faced a recalcitrant Republican opposition. . . . But presidents work their will — or should work their will — on important matters of national business. . . . Obama has not.” Or, as Republicans say, he has not lead. (more…)

One wonders if our friends in the legacy media will devote as much time to “fact-checking” the error-prone Vice President’s speech Wednesday night as they did to that of his opponent in the fall campaign. Perhaps, they will decide to build a narrative on a Romney campaign aide’s tweet.

And that aide will likely have a greater respect for facts that will the author of the tweet which inspired last week’s legacy media frenzy.

. . . top Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter sent this tweet: “Ryan blaming the President for a GM auto plant that closed under Pres Bush—thought he was smarter than that.” With one click after another, Cutter’s false claim became accepted wisdom.

Her tweet about Paul Ryan was similarly inaccurate. The Wisconsin Republican never blamed Obama for closing the GM plant. Below are Ryan’s remarks about the plant:

[1] My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it—especially in Janesville, [2] where we were about to lose a major factory. [3] A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. plant. [4-a] Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, “I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.”

[4-b] That’s what he said in 2008. [5] Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. [6] And that’s how it is in so many towns where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Please note I added in the numbers in brackets, each representing a fact which can be checked. If you wish to dispute the accuracy of Mr. Ryan’s facts, please identify by number the particular fact, then provide evidence demonstrating its inaccuracy. Ed Morrissey provides video evidence showing that Obama did indeed say what Ryan says he said in 2008 [4].

To truly “fact-check” the speech, you would first need identify the facts, then check each one.

Our “fact-checkers” in the legacy media, however, have a different standard for determining the accuracy of a Republicans remarks. (more…)

That notion of “top down” economics better describes the policies the Democrats advocate than the ones the Republicans promote. Democrats’s policies always involve a greater role for government, “stimulating” the economy by directing taxpayer (or borrowed) dollars to favored industries.

With Americans, on average, worth less and earning less than when he was inaugurated, Barack Obama is requesting a second term by promising, or perhaps threatening, that prosperity is just around the corner if he can practice four more years of trickle-down government.